Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:14:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2678 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
|
| |
Here is my opinion, restated:
Nature, by definition, cannot produce or do anything that is unnatural.
Humans are part of nature and are therefore natural. By definition, humans
cannot produce or do anything that is unnatural.
Alternatively, can you propose an argument showing how humans either are
unnatural or can produce/do something that is unnatural?
|
I think your definition makes a lot of sense but the problem is that it doesn’t
give a distinguishing metric. (I’ve used that to great advantage when arguing
against those that argue against “artificial flavours” for example).
That said, what about a definition that distinguishes things that arise from
environmental processes (coal deposits for example) versus things that arise
from intelligent manipulation (bakelite made from coal tar in a chemical plant
for example). (This avoids the question of where intelligence came from).
Things that arise from instinct need to get sorted one way or another, so you
have to make a call as to where beaver dams, lion dens and cliff swallow
dwellings fit, for example.
That definition gives you a pretty good sense of what artificial is. However it
may well sift too far. An organic fruit brought to market via horse drawn
carriage and never refrigerated is nevertheless not “natural” under that
definition. So maybe it’s no use either.
Not sure that helps at all, after all.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) I may be misunderstanding you, but are you identifying the lack of a point of distinction (between natural and unnatural or natural and artificial) as the problem? I'm not clear on this objection, I'm afraid. (...) Yeah, I guess it's a matter (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) This is sort of how I feel. Of course it does seem to make unnatural a less useful term. Even supernatural is a difficult term, though it's use to separate God from God's creation (assuming you accept the existence of a creator god, or a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) The term has invested with the connotation that I don't think it should have, honestly. In practice, the word tends to mean "altered by human intervention," but this definition is valid only if we declare that humans are not part of nature, or (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
